25%+ cut in allowances!
As mere civilian filth, I was at a NATO conference last year at Eindhoven - this included most major European air forces plus QinetiQ and others.
The only major air force not to turn up was the RAF - because no-one would pay the travel costs.
This did not go unnoticed. "Has the RAF given everything up?" was the exasperated comment from a colleague.
Some of the RAF's allowances certainly were ridiculous - remember 'porterage'? Nor can I really understand in-floight rationing, such as why a flight taking off at 1400 and landing at 1730 earns the crew a hot meal, FFS. Sadly though, where there are allowances there will always be people who try to rape the system.
For incidental expenses, individual company Visa cards and receipts for anything which cannot be paid by Visa. How hard is that?
However, touch flying pay (and equivalent specialist pay) at your peril, Georgie Porgie, puddin' and pie.... Your hooray-Henry 'Buller' ignorance of life's realities is becoming plain for all to see.
The only major air force not to turn up was the RAF - because no-one would pay the travel costs.
This did not go unnoticed. "Has the RAF given everything up?" was the exasperated comment from a colleague.
Some of the RAF's allowances certainly were ridiculous - remember 'porterage'? Nor can I really understand in-floight rationing, such as why a flight taking off at 1400 and landing at 1730 earns the crew a hot meal, FFS. Sadly though, where there are allowances there will always be people who try to rape the system.
For incidental expenses, individual company Visa cards and receipts for anything which cannot be paid by Visa. How hard is that?
However, touch flying pay (and equivalent specialist pay) at your peril, Georgie Porgie, puddin' and pie.... Your hooray-Henry 'Buller' ignorance of life's realities is becoming plain for all to see.
dropintheoggin, about 40 years ago, pilots in staff appointments used to have to fly a minimum number of hours per month in order to retain entitlement to flying pay. The chief CoE god-botherer at Cranwell when I was a Flt Cdt had his wings and regularly used to pop up to see his boss...
But in general, the whole thing was a flight safety and supervisory nightmare - and it was then realised that it was safer and cheaper to pay pilots on ground tours than it was to replace aircraft and bury the casualties.
Although if a pilot chooses to reject a flying tour, entitlement to flying pay should certainly be queried....
But in general, the whole thing was a flight safety and supervisory nightmare - and it was then realised that it was safer and cheaper to pay pilots on ground tours than it was to replace aircraft and bury the casualties.
Although if a pilot chooses to reject a flying tour, entitlement to flying pay should certainly be queried....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
He drove from Singapore whereas I only drove from Cyprus. Even had we been given the cost of an indulgence passage it would have been something.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BEagle, I think it stopped around1960. The RCAF still had it in the mid-60s.
As you say, it was a flight safety issue but also the cost of providing aircraft like the Anson or Chippy just for stick time.
Jets were also made available for w/e landaways - same deal
As you say, it was a flight safety issue but also the cost of providing aircraft like the Anson or Chippy just for stick time.
Jets were also made available for w/e landaways - same deal
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
When flying pay was cut before it was not retrospective. Initially, IIRC, Flying Instructional Pay was reduced and eventually stopped but those already in receipt retained their entitlement to it.
What could possibly happen is a slow reduction in flying pay for those not yet in receipt and a possible freeze or slow down for those in receipt. I think a similar thing was done with the last non-flying tour flying pay; those more than 3 years from flying retained their flying pay for that tour, ie up to 6 years, then had to return to flying.
AFAIK sudden cessation has never happened.
And HtoD is actually a fairly recent allowance too IIRC. I think it was introduced around 1974 at 1.6p/mile. At an average earning growth HtD should now be 19.9p/mile. Using per capita GDP it would be 24.1p/mile.
What could possibly happen is a slow reduction in flying pay for those not yet in receipt and a possible freeze or slow down for those in receipt. I think a similar thing was done with the last non-flying tour flying pay; those more than 3 years from flying retained their flying pay for that tour, ie up to 6 years, then had to return to flying.
AFAIK sudden cessation has never happened.
And HtoD is actually a fairly recent allowance too IIRC. I think it was introduced around 1974 at 1.6p/mile. At an average earning growth HtD should now be 19.9p/mile. Using per capita GDP it would be 24.1p/mile.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For incidental expenses, individual company Visa cards and receipts for anything which cannot be paid by Visa. How hard is that?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having to move back in to the Mess to do a weekly commute
With the recent and well reported reduction of LOA I now find myself in the situation of being paid considerably less than I received in Whitehall (INVOLSEP) - and I am supporting a family in what appears to be an exotic - yet chuffingly expensive - overseas location. I have a number of friends and former colleagues working abroad, say, for the Big 4 who are astounded that we are even paying for our accommodation and are so limited in many of our business travel expenses. I would not have taken up this current 'assignment' if I had known how expensive it would be and how our allowances were being savaged. I do not believe that the Authority (MOD) exercised due diligence.
I have had to return to UK for a hospital appointment and was authorised arbitrarily by my 'budget manager' (located some 5 hours away and who has no FSA qualifications, btw) to spend no more that £85 per night for accommodation in Central London. The RAF CLub was booked out, as was Union Jack and Victory Services CLub. I ended up staying at an IBIS hotel in the 'East End' and paying the £20 difference myself. Only other accommodation was a Youth Hostel! Same budget manager authorised a rental car, to include overnight parking (£30) and congestion charges (£8 pd). I declined it on grounds of practicality.
I could go on, however one avenue is to claim work related expenses against ones PAYE tax at the end of the FY.
I have had to return to UK for a hospital appointment and was authorised arbitrarily by my 'budget manager' (located some 5 hours away and who has no FSA qualifications, btw) to spend no more that £85 per night for accommodation in Central London. The RAF CLub was booked out, as was Union Jack and Victory Services CLub. I ended up staying at an IBIS hotel in the 'East End' and paying the £20 difference myself. Only other accommodation was a Youth Hostel! Same budget manager authorised a rental car, to include overnight parking (£30) and congestion charges (£8 pd). I declined it on grounds of practicality.
I could go on, however one avenue is to claim work related expenses against ones PAYE tax at the end of the FY.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The argument seems to be divided along the lines of those out who say they don't get the allowances and those in that say they deserve them.
Let us look at it a different way.
Those outside are probably in jobs where travel and consequent subsistence are part and parcel of the job. Those in are employed to work at one location during one tour.
If allowances were slashed, as indeed they were for courses, then those that are pinged, or volunteer, are disadvantaged compared to those that simply kept their heads down.
Let us look at it a different way.
Those outside are probably in jobs where travel and consequent subsistence are part and parcel of the job. Those in are employed to work at one location during one tour.
If allowances were slashed, as indeed they were for courses, then those that are pinged, or volunteer, are disadvantaged compared to those that simply kept their heads down.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB - Well said; I agree completely that we shouldn't be trying to make money from allowances
It's been some years now but I think the figure was around 82% reimbursement.
Mr C Hinecap,
I think you will find that the commute / Mess decision is not quite as cut and dry as you make out. I don't know of any Service member and home owner that would choose to do a weekly commute, it is probably the worst of all options in terms of disruption. However in many cases - mine included - people have no choice; they are told by Manning to go to a posting on the other side of the country.
And to quote the JSP 752, HTD is paid to compensate Service personnel because of the requirement to be mobile and have limited choice. So, for many, it has absolutely nothing to do with personal choice and a weekly commute is required to maintain some slim vestige of a family life and stability.
However, having spent many years encouraging people to buy their own properties to ease the burden on the MOD to provide all the facilities associated with living on base, they now want to pull the rug from under people who have done just that. And to those who think of allowances as freebies, perks of the job etc, the MOD Benefits Calculator is very keen to include allowances in the overall renumeration package; if they want to do that, then they must be prepared for the media / political fall out when people complain that their overall renumeration has been reduced on top of the pay freeze, pensions review etc.
Seems to me that the MOD and those keen to bash service personnel want to have their cake and eat it.
having to move back in to the Mess to do a weekly commute
Woah there fella. Personal choice - nothing to do with anything else, so don't expect a subsidy. Move family, or be a weekend commuter.
Woah there fella. Personal choice - nothing to do with anything else, so don't expect a subsidy. Move family, or be a weekend commuter.
And to quote the JSP 752, HTD is paid to compensate Service personnel because of the requirement to be mobile and have limited choice. So, for many, it has absolutely nothing to do with personal choice and a weekly commute is required to maintain some slim vestige of a family life and stability.
However, having spent many years encouraging people to buy their own properties to ease the burden on the MOD to provide all the facilities associated with living on base, they now want to pull the rug from under people who have done just that. And to those who think of allowances as freebies, perks of the job etc, the MOD Benefits Calculator is very keen to include allowances in the overall renumeration package; if they want to do that, then they must be prepared for the media / political fall out when people complain that their overall renumeration has been reduced on top of the pay freeze, pensions review etc.
Seems to me that the MOD and those keen to bash service personnel want to have their cake and eat it.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Pontius old chap, ref Post 46; I too drove home from Cyprus, but that rather misses the point. They pay for me to get out here, but don't pay for me to get home. How does that work?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe HTD is up for debate here - this is an essential allowance for some families and NO it is not just a simple case of "move your family to where you are posted"; what about families where both are serving at bases at different ends of the country. I'm approaching a point where I'm ashamed to serve.
Both serving
JB, While I fully understand your stance, the one thing we all have in common is a CHOICE. Whether you both serve or just one of you it matters not. No one couple is anymore important than anyone else. I am not suggesting you meant that, but it has become a theme throughout the military today.
lunchboxlegend - Not sure which scheme you are talking about there. Rather than any specific scheme, I was thinking more in the round of the MOD wanting to get as many people off base and into their own homes to reduce the costs of having to provide facilities to house them etc. They can't have it both ways. From a personal perspective, the family factor isn't an issue, but I'm damned if I am going to spend the best part of my life living in largely sub-standard accommodation on a remote base, that I would frankly be embarrassed to invite friends to stay at. In the interests of a balanced life, I chose to buy a house in a location that was close to the majority of likely postings; this was done having discussed career and personal aspirations with the Desk so they were well aware of my thoughts and intentions. But I refuse to subsidise the MOD because of where it chose to post me in relation to my permanent home address.
However, if as it seems, the concept of individual choice is the key factor, on that basis, you have just consigned almost all allowances and arguably even specialist pay to a stroke from the accountant's pen. At the very least, if that is your rationale for getting rid of HTD, then the same applies to CEA; people have a choice as to whether they put their children in boarding schools or use schools local to their base. Therefore lets get rid of CEA. And before you argue about damaging children's educational prospects, that argument also goes for HTD and spouses' career prospects if you force them to move. People also have a choice as to whether they apply for overseas sunshine tours; they go into it with their eyes open, why pay them LOA as well? People have a choice as to whether they join up to be aircrew, EOD, diver, submariner or any one of the numerous trades attracting specialist pay; they join to do the job not for the allowance; if specialist pay is a recruitment and retention allowance, then only those who really want to do the job for what it is will choose to join if you get rid of it.
And yes, I am playing Devil's advocate slightly with that last example. However, you get my drift. The concept of personal choice can quite easily be argued to extend right the way across the military, its allowances and possibly even its pay structures. Get rid of HTD on the basis of personal choice, and CEA starts to look very shaky. Get rid of that and watch the PVRs go through the roof. And whilst I'm not a lawyer, I would put good money on spouses with careers of their own taking a very dim view that their lives are being trashed by proxy thanks to MOD policy; in this litigious day and age, I'm surprised we haven't already seen claims under Human Rights legislation about MOD posting policies damaging spouses' rights to a life, career, family etc.
In short, be very careful what you wish for, because the law of unintended consequences has a nasty habit of biting you hard.
However, if as it seems, the concept of individual choice is the key factor, on that basis, you have just consigned almost all allowances and arguably even specialist pay to a stroke from the accountant's pen. At the very least, if that is your rationale for getting rid of HTD, then the same applies to CEA; people have a choice as to whether they put their children in boarding schools or use schools local to their base. Therefore lets get rid of CEA. And before you argue about damaging children's educational prospects, that argument also goes for HTD and spouses' career prospects if you force them to move. People also have a choice as to whether they apply for overseas sunshine tours; they go into it with their eyes open, why pay them LOA as well? People have a choice as to whether they join up to be aircrew, EOD, diver, submariner or any one of the numerous trades attracting specialist pay; they join to do the job not for the allowance; if specialist pay is a recruitment and retention allowance, then only those who really want to do the job for what it is will choose to join if you get rid of it.
And yes, I am playing Devil's advocate slightly with that last example. However, you get my drift. The concept of personal choice can quite easily be argued to extend right the way across the military, its allowances and possibly even its pay structures. Get rid of HTD on the basis of personal choice, and CEA starts to look very shaky. Get rid of that and watch the PVRs go through the roof. And whilst I'm not a lawyer, I would put good money on spouses with careers of their own taking a very dim view that their lives are being trashed by proxy thanks to MOD policy; in this litigious day and age, I'm surprised we haven't already seen claims under Human Rights legislation about MOD posting policies damaging spouses' rights to a life, career, family etc.
In short, be very careful what you wish for, because the law of unintended consequences has a nasty habit of biting you hard.